During the past days we had many experts roaming about and advising us as to the cause of the building collapse at Paceville. Realistically speaking, we are too early to conclude as to what caused the building to collapse.  At the end of the day, it may be not just one cause, but a plurality of causes. While there may be some indications, at this early stage it is prudent to examine them and discuss them rather than to immediately conclude and start pointing fingers, as some are unfortunately doing on the social media.

The method statement for the demolition works relative to the Paceville development under consideration (PA2173/21), as is normal, identifies a number of risks involved. One of the risks mentioned specifically in the demolition method statement is the geology of the area, which was as yet unidentified. It is this unidentified risk which prompted Dr Peter Gatt, President of the Chamber of Geologists, to point out that there was a need for at least a preliminary geological assessment of the site before the demolition works commenced. It definitely follows that if the developer himself, through his advisors, has identified a risk, it is incumbent on the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), as the regulating authority, to ensure that such a risk is addressed in a satisfactory manner before authorising the commencement of works.

Maybe, the BCA would explain as to what action it has taken on this risk other than filing away the demolition method statement it had received.  This is an important matter as it is one of a number of issues which the investigation into the incident should consider in depth in order to establish the facts leading to the Paceville building collapse.

The law is strong enough, we were told, to ensure that those whose actions were responsible for the building collapse are held accountable. While this may be so, it is definitely not enough. We need to ensure that the law, and the institutions entrusted to enforce it, are strong enough to prevent such a collapse. Prevention of accidents, I believe, is a primary objective to be achieved through the regulation of the building industry.

Furthermore, regulation of the building industry should not be exclusively focused on the construction phase. Regulation should be spread throughout the whole life of buildings: a life cycle approach is essential. Various issues can arise throughout the expected lifespan of a building.

I understand that this was the basic motivation which correctly guided the BCA, way back in 2021, as led by then CEO Karl Azzopardi in order to start planning for the introduction of a passport for our buildings. In fact, a preliminary market consultation was issued by the BCA in October 2021 in this respect.

A building passport would group together all the available documentation relative to the state of a building and its services. Already it is required at law to address a building's energy performance through an energy performance certificate (EPC), which is valid for ten years. Furthermore, when lifts are installed, these have to be certified at regular intervals as being safe and in working order. One could also consider, within this context, to ensure that each and every building is sound and without structural defects throughout its lifetime. This has to be ensured through proper maintenance as well as by ensuring that any addition/alteration to an existing building is done properly, even being respectful of neighbouring properties. In the long term a building passport could ensure all this, and much more, is adequately documented and held by the BCA, as the regulator of the building industry.

There were five detailed responses to the BCA preliminary market consultation on the building passport. By the time that the responses received were analysed, the political responsibility for the BCA had shifted from Parliamentary Secretary Chris Agius to the then new Minister responsible for the building industry, Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. In a short span of time, Karl Azzopardi was squeezed out as CEO of the BCA, and subsequently the whole building passport process was scrapped. Mission accomplished. The building industry was protected from more regulations!

When one gets to know all this (and there is much more) it is clear that there is no good faith on the government side when "regulating" the building industry. It is no wonder that the building industry is in its present state.

An architect and civil engineer, the author is a former Chairperson of ADPD-The Green Party in Malta.  [email protected] ,   http://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com